sybase, Numeric 10 field accepted a value of 12 in size

Numeric 10 field accepted a value of 12 in size

by BigDadd » Thu, 07 Sep 2000 06:30:24 GMT

All, We are running ASE 11.9.2 with the latest ebf on Solaris. We are replicating using V11.5.5 of sybase replication server. Sybase appearantly allowed a numeric value larger than the size specified to be inserted into ASE, while replication (which was configured for the column the same as the ASE) did not. Replication correctly suspended replication. This sounds like a bug with ASE 11.9.2 or does it allow values in larger than the actual field size? Thanks Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Numeric 10 field accepted a value of 12 in size

by Bret Halfor » Fri, 08 Sep 2000 01:13:31 GMT

It sounds like a bug to me. What was the value? Do you know how it was inserted? -bret

> All, > We are running ASE 11.9.2 with the latest ebf on Solaris. We are > replicating using V11.5.5 of sybase replication server. Sybase > appearantly allowed a numeric value larger than the size specified to > be inserted into ASE, while replication (which was configured for the > column the same as the ASE) did not. Replication correctly suspended > replication. This sounds like a bug with ASE 11.9.2 or does it allow > values in larger than the actual field size? > Thanks > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.

Numeric 10 field accepted a value of 12 in size

by BigDadd » Fri, 08 Sep 2000 02:17:56 GMT

Brett, In this case it was an update statement, where it updated a 10 numeric field to 12. (I see the statement in replications exception log). We tried doing the same with a stored proc and ASE did not accept that (with an insert). Thanks, Al In article <39B7CCBB.A1CAC...@sybase.com>,

> It sounds like a bug to me. What was the value? Do you know how it was > inserted? > -bret

> > All, > > We are running ASE 11.9.2 with the latest ebf on Solaris. We are > > replicating using V11.5.5 of sybase replication server. Sybase > > appearantly allowed a numeric value larger than the size specified to > > be inserted into ASE, while replication (which was configured for the > > column the same as the ASE) did not. Replication correctly suspended > > replication. This sounds like a bug with ASE 11.9.2 or does it allow > > values in larger than the actual field size? > > Thanks > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > > Before you buy.